'The UK does not have standing riot police, nor are water cannon and baton rounds a common feature.' Photograph: Rex Features

Public trust has always been at the heart of the British model of policing. Trust can be shaken by individual events, perhaps never more so when large-scale public order situations give rise to violence. Such tests seem likely to occur more frequently as spending cuts bite across the public sector. But despite the difficult times we undoubtedly face ahead, it is important to stress that the fundamental elements of how we deal with public order – principles that remain lauded throughout the world – will not change.

By the conscious design of men such as Sir Robert Peel, the police themselves should have to act in such a way that secures and maintains the approval, respect and affection of the public. They should be professional in character, independent of any special interest and above all, accountable to the public we serve and to the rule of law. Despite great changes to society and the police service over the years, the simple maths that 140,000 (and falling) officers continue to police a population of 61 million tells you that policing in the UK is still built on the principle of consent.

Public order situations ask individual officers to make difficult choices: in discharging their duties to uphold the law, to balance competing rights of protesters and those seeking to go about their business, and to use necessary and proportionate force. Where individual officers act outside of the law, then they themselves must be subject to it – as we have seen again recently. The overwhelming majority of officers get it right, often in the face of severe provocation, and they should be supported.

Our understanding of how to make those choices is strengthened by a growing understanding of human rights obligations with the police service. In my own experience in Northern Ireland, the reforms implemented under the Patten report placed human rights at the centre of the police service of Northern Ireland, putting us, at that time, in a unique position. Following the 2009 G20 protests, the national review of tactics led to human rights principles set within revised national guidelines on public order.

That does not mean the British policing model lacks a hard edge. The right to protest is conditional and it is the role of ground commanders to decide what is proportionate in any given situation. The reality is their choices will rarely be welcomed – the Metropolitan Police in particular continues to be criticised, both by those who urge tougher policing tactics, and by those who condemn them. Every public order event poses a different challenge and is an opportunity to improve the way the service responds. The speed at which groups are now mobilising – some of them intent on violence within largely peaceful protests – adds a whole new dimension. Communication between protesters and police remains the key to getting the most appropriate approach in each unique situation.

A striking comparison remains between the policing of protest in Britain and other jurisdictions. The UK does not have standing "riot police", nor are water cannon and baton rounds a common feature, as they are in other western European countries. To manage large-scale events we take officers from the neighbourhoods and communities they would far rather be policing.

In the foreseeable future the need for mutual aid – sharing those officers between forces – to deal with public order events will increase, and it will be critical to preserve the ability of the service to act collectively at a national level when integrating locally elected policing and crime commissioners. Nor can the fact of fewer resources and a harsher fiscal reality be allowed to become a pretext for restrictions on the right to peaceful protest. As a police service it is essential we guard against this, and hold fast to the principles of the British model.